Ok, I'll play. Here is a cut and paste from a union website trying to defend your position (i.e. that Soc Security would not be bankrupt in 2042).
Is Social Security bankrupt?
Not hardly, though you might think so to read some of the propaganda being poured out by the Cato Institute. According to this year's Social Security Trustees Report, the Social Security fund spent less than 75 percent of what they collected in 1999, leaving a surplus of nearly $134 billion for the year. They now have more than $896 billion in their surplus account.
Well then, what is the problem?
The problem is that, according to projections made by the Trustees, the fund actually will begin spending more than it takes in around the year 2015, and the surplus will be depleted in about 2037. After that, the amount collected will only pay about two-thirds of the benefits guaranteed to retirees, survivors, and the disabled. In 1983, a similar shortfall (the fund was completely wiped out that year) caused Congress to raise the payroll tax.
How big is the problem?
If you plan to collect Social Security benefits after 2037, the problem is serious. Fortunately, it is not nearly as big as those pushing privatization make it sound. The projected shortfall for the next 75 years is only 1.89 percent of projected payroll. At worst, the shortfall could be alleviated by a two percent tax. We do not recommend this solution (there are much better ways to make up the deficit). We only offer it to show that saving Social Security will not bankrupt future generations as many articles have claimed.
http://www.boilermakers.org/ss/ssindex1.html
So, even this site that is against privitization concedes that there will have to be an INCREASE IN PAYROLL TAX to prevent Social Security from becoming insolvent around 2037. I believe your original quote said 2042...maybe Bush was being generous.
NEXT?